Question

Directions for questions 37 to 41: Analyze the statements given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.

Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training programs to lead to safer work environments. A recent survey indicated, however, that for manufacturers who improved job safety training programs during the 1980s, the number of on-the-job accidents increased in the months following the imparting of improved training programs.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the passage above?

• A. A similar survey found that the number of on-the-job accidents remained constant after job safety training programs were improved in the transportation sector.
• B. Manufacturers tend to improve job safety training programs only when they are increasing the size of their workforce.
• C. Manufacturers tend to improve job safety training programs only after they have noticed an increase in the number of on-the-job accidents.
• D. It is likely that the increase in the number of on-the-job accidents experienced by many companies was not merely a random fluctuation.

Hint:

Ask which event came first, the training improvement or the rise in accidents, reversing that order removes the contradiction.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The puzzle here is that better safety training was expected to bring accidents down, but the survey shows accidents going up right after training improved. Resolving this means finding a fact that removes the contradiction rather than one that just adds detail.

1. A similar survey found accidents stayed flat after training improved in transportation: this only compares a different industry, it does not explain what happened in manufacturing.
2. Manufacturers improve training only when growing their workforce: a growing workforce could add to the raw accident count, but this does not directly explain why the increase shows up specifically in the months right after training was improved.
3. Manufacturers improve training only after noticing a rise in accidents: this reverses the assumed order of cause and effect. The accidents were already climbing before training changed, so the survey was catching the tail of an existing rise, not a new one caused by the training. This removes the contradiction entirely.
4. The increase was probably not a random fluctuation: this makes the pattern look more real and harder to explain away, it does not resolve anything.

Only the third option removes the assumption that training came first and accidents rose afterward because of it. Once we know manufacturers only upgrade training after accidents are already rising, the numbers in the survey make sense without any conflict with what experts expect.

Let's summarize:

• An apparent contradiction is often resolved by questioning which event actually came first.
• If accidents were rising before training improved, the training did not cause the rise.
• Details about a different sector, workforce size, or non-randomness do not touch this cause-and-effect question.

So the discrepancy is best explained by option 3, manufacturers improve training only after accidents have already started rising.